Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
talk:nations:alphas_realm_nationhood [2013/12/17 23:02] p.p.a |
talk:nations:alphas_realm_nationhood [2020/11/08 04:02] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| </WRAP> | </WRAP> | ||
| + | ===== Citizenship ===== | ||
| + | When we wrote the paragraph that nations require five active and exclusive citizens, the intention was to prevent A) one-man-nations propped up by dead or dual citizens, and B) players not committing themselves to nation play, but only adding their numbers for some benefits or as a favour, while effectively playing elsewhere. | ||
| + | I thought we would disallow dual citizenship altogether, but on a recent wiki edit v1ad expressed that dual citizenship is fine, it just won't add to the 5 minimum citizens required fro nationhood. On one hand, this seems sensible, and I'm inclined to agree with the notion since it prevents abuse. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable with openly allowing dual citizens since this will cause complications in case of a war between the nations a player is a citizen of; and nations as supposed to be groups of players committing themselves to political play together, and it runs counter to that concept that players who are primarily occupied with their own independent projects join nations without participating in them. | ||
| + | What do yo think, v1ad, Rosenmann? I'm inclined to interpret “active citizens with no other citizenship” as players who spend the majority of their time on the server with projects related to that nation, but I can see that this might be too harsh. | ||
| + | >“active citizens with no other citizenship” is addressing what a nation requires. That's why I'm saying "it just won't add to the 5 minimum citizens required for nationhood." As it stands, as far as I know, there's nothing stopping someone from being a citizen of more than one nation as long as there are 5 additional, unique citizens in each of the nations. I don't see any problem with dual citizens if they don't add to the requirements (if they did then the same 5 people could make 30 nations, but they don't so they can't). There have been dual citizens since the 1.7 server, I don't see any reason we shouldn't allow it. I don't even think this requires any special notation, except maybe to explicitely allow it. The implications seem fairly obvious to me and I don't think they necessarily need to be spelled out at all: If one of the nations enters a war, he's part of the war; if both nations declare war on eachother, he should probably pick a side or I guess both sides can just kill him. -vlad | ||
| - | ====== caBastard ====== | + | >>All right, I can live with that. I don't think this needs to be further specified in the rules then. What about players who run independent one-man settlements and are primarily active there, but are also citizens of a nation? I don't think they should be included counting towards the minimum 5 players either, since they aren't actually committed to the nation. Could this be exploited to allow a nation to effectively control land outside of its borders, if these settlements belong to their citizens but are not formally part of the nation? Should, in such a situation, the settlement be annexed to the nation the settlement leader is a citizen of? Or should we just ignore it until it actually becomes a dispute? -P.P.A. |
| - | >//What is a nation and how does a town become a nation?// | + | |
| - | A nation is a political entity that can only function within the **Server Nation System**. A nations is formed when 5 or more people declare themselves a political entity under a name and a symbol to represent them. They must create a Wiki page and have a picture of their territorial claims which must be reviewed by moderators. If one of these is not done, then the declaration is nullified. | + | |
| - | >//What are the privileges of a nation / its citizens?// | + | |
| - | Nations and its citizens get to claim land based on how many they are and what they get to build. Nations and citizens can submit proposal bids for the Politburo to review and rule on. | + | |
| - | >//Are there different tiers of nationhood/settlements/villages?// | + | |
| - | A settlement and a village are the same thing. Settlements exist within nations. A settlement would be the capital, for example, and they could have other settlements. All these plus the empty territories form the nation. Non political settlements can't claim lands like nations can, and that makes them in a way inferior to nations although apolitical players have more important rights. | + | |
| - | >//How do nations claim land and how much can they claim?// | + | |
| - | They must make a map determining what land they're claiming. Each and every map shall be reviewed and approved by the Politburo otherwise the claim is not valid. The ideal way to claim something is to (surprise surprise) build a great wall around what you're claiming as yours. This is too demanding, so proper boundary stones with signs are valid. There should be a relations between how many people form the nation and how much they have built in order to claim land. Citizens should be encouraged to build in the granted territories. | + | |
| - | >//How are disputes resolved between nations; between nations and non-nations?// | + | |
| - | Apolitical players get preference, after all this is not a political dedicated server. However, there should be a lot of negotiations with the Politburo as moderator to reach a deal between the affected parties. | + | |
| - | >//What is a war and how does one begin and end?// | + | >>>"Or should we just ignore it until it actually becomes a dispute?" I vote for that, but if we had to decide I would WANT to say that active means active in the nation, but that's ridiculous and impossible to enforce. So I would just ignore the problem and <del>the politburo will hire some mercenary nation</del> let someone war them and when no one shows up to defend the nation then problem solved. -v |
| - | >//What are the consequences of winning or losing a war?// | + | |
| - | All wars must be fought over something, be resources, territories or relics. This is not a Paradox game so worthless shit like prestige is up for the players to believe. There should be two levels of fighting. The lowest are raids and skirmishes. Nothing is being fought over in those, and they can only happen when there is a state of war between two or more nations. The next level are battles which are the ones that matter. Each and every battle must be fought over something, like a province for example. The sides involve can also agree to define the outcome of a war in a battle, for example, two nations agree that the victor of the battle gets the province and __**wins the war**__ ultimately. This should be accorded by both sides, otherwise the war keeps going as much as they want. The Politburo should have no saying over the length of the war. Raids and skirmishes can happen at any time of the war, battles however must be agreed to in a specific date. | + | |
| - | >//How is a war to be handled so it is not griefing?// | + | |
| - | Moderators must regulate all battles to make sure the rules are enforced. This means that the date of the battle should adjust to the chosen moderator's time. Skirmishes and raids can't be regulated when they happen due to their nature, but a mod can check later to see if there was any griefing if summoned by the victims. | + | |
| - | >//Under what circumstances does a war stop being a war and become griefing?// | + | |
| - | I would say griefing should be fully allowed in times of war. This way players will consider when to declare war, contrary to believe that they'll be in a perpetual state of war and therefore griefing. | + | |
| - | >//What penalties, if any, are there for not agreeing to a war or to losing a war?// | + | |
| - | Not agreeing for a war __**once**__ should end in <wrap hi>having the offending nation's nationhood revoked.</wrap> The other side should be granted whatever they were fighting for. It should come from the offenders (for example a war over resources means having their chests opened to make them pay). Players should know what they get into when they apply for nationhood. Over the past three eras several nations have used the nation system just to claim land and wave their dick in diplomacy while declaring neutrality. War is the most important aspect of nations and the most regulated one, but if everyone goes around claiming neutrality then it has no point. War should be unavoidable. The Politburo is not the United Nations, we are not here to prevent war but to regulate it. | + | |
| - | \\ | + | >I think that activity of citizens in nations are pretty unmeasurable, and I think making people living in the nation is somewhat unreasonably punishing. I think being in nation is more a connection between people, not binding people to clay. I try to think about situation that could abuse this system but I can't think about any. Dual citizenship is more of a problem, since in the end it will be hell to decide to who is actual citizen of nation X. |
| - | I believe nations and their actions should be regulated but we should lax the rules so political interactions can be more dynamic but also shows how serious (for autist) this thing should be. The nation system punitive in nature. You know you will be a target so enter under your own risk. That way we will see if this server is really politics-material. If not then it can go to hell. --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/15 04:17// | + | |
| - | ==== Replies ==== | + | >>"Dual citizenship is more of a problem, since in the end it will be hell to decide to who is actual citizen of nation X." But remember this is only really a problem for the first 5 people of each nation, and is therefore easy to track. Deciding who is an actual citizen only then becomes important for wars. In that case they can drop in and out whenever anyway, so again, it doesn't matter. -v |
| - | ><wrap em>So is there anything in the main article that you want to be changed? It seems pretty in line with my ideas.</wrap> --- //[[people:vladimirr|v1adimirr]] 2013/12/15 08:59//\\ | + | >>>"But remember this is only really a problem for the first 5 people of each nation," It is also problem when citizens leave country and it might be under 5 when you doesn't count citizens with double citizenship and it is over 5 when you count people with double citizenship. The point is we are supposed to want to know to know exact number of citizens any time. -r |
| - | >>I though that article was just a base on what we need to discuss. I say we must give our ideas (you included), discuss them and make a draft with the specific rules and vote on them. --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/15 21:20// | + | |
| - | ><wrap em>Not agreeing for a war __**once**__ should end in <wrap hi>having the offending nation's nationhood revoked.</wrap></wrap> | + | >>>>I really don't think it will be a problem because it never has been. Let's just make a ruling when or if it ever does become one. -v |
| - | >>Offending nation as in the one disagreeing to partake in battle? --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/12/15 09:25// | + | |
| - | >>>Yes. It's a clumsy way of saying that if you don't agree to fight in wars then you aren't a nation. --- //[[people:vladimirr|v1adimirr]] 2013/12/15 09:31// | + | |
| - | >>>Pretty much what v1adimirr said, mazznoff. I aim the nations system to prevent having faggots that shelter on "muh neutrality". --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/15 21:24// | + | |
| - | ><wrap em>A problem which should be addressed is the eventual problem of nations which have fallen into inactivity. In the past there have been areas once populated decomposed into so-called "//one-man nations//". Would the individual claims degrade into separate apolitical settlements? Is there a set time an entity must recommend five active players before losing its nationhood?</wrap> --- //[[people:hinoarashi|hino]] 2013/12/15 10:00// | + | >>>>>Well, if we are going just to try out new things I am ok with it. I just wanted to predict possible problems -r~ |
| - | >>Thanks for bringing this up. I believe PPA talked about it and I agree what v1adimirr also said. If a nations starts becoming inactive I suggest we Commission Members rule on that based on the players we know are part of it and how often they've been playing. For this we will need a proper census for each nation. We kindly expect the nations' leaders to do this in their wiki pages by putting each citizen's name in the population bracket. It's a good point because I don't want nations to end like me in Oceania Rhodes, a one-man Empire. Nations that become inactive will have their nationhood revoked. They will revert to just settlements and own what they've built. Any undeveloped land they claimed will be leased for all players to build in. --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/15 21:27// | + | |
| - | ====== P_P_A ====== | + | |
| - | ==== Nations ==== | + | <hidden old shit> |
| + | **P_P_A** | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Nations** | ||
| Nations only make sense if where is a sufficient number of people to maintain and defend them; otherwise they become a way for single players to claim disproportional amounts of land and to play themselves up to unwarranted importance on the wiki. Nations should require five //active// players to retain its status. | Nations only make sense if where is a sufficient number of people to maintain and defend them; otherwise they become a way for single players to claim disproportional amounts of land and to play themselves up to unwarranted importance on the wiki. Nations should require five //active// players to retain its status. | ||
| Line 72: | Line 55: | ||
| - | ==== War ==== | + | **War** |
| The rules for war stem from a time when this server was much more active. Raids and skirmishes, and their distinction from battles, are in particular an anachronism. A nation with only five players cannot continuously defend itself against raids; and neither is there much of a point to organise proper battles if raids are possible without repercussions.\\ | The rules for war stem from a time when this server was much more active. Raids and skirmishes, and their distinction from battles, are in particular an anachronism. A nation with only five players cannot continuously defend itself against raids; and neither is there much of a point to organise proper battles if raids are possible without repercussions.\\ | ||
| Line 82: | Line 65: | ||
| Griefing should not be allowed, not even in war; but certain buildings and structures—like walls, towers, and castles—that are defensive in nature may be razed during warfare. Torches may be destroyed too, and fields burned down; but civilian buildings and infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.) are to remain untouched. Withers may be used during battles, but the damage they have caused by them will be rolled back after the dust has settled | Griefing should not be allowed, not even in war; but certain buildings and structures—like walls, towers, and castles—that are defensive in nature may be razed during warfare. Torches may be destroyed too, and fields burned down; but civilian buildings and infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.) are to remain untouched. Withers may be used during battles, but the damage they have caused by them will be rolled back after the dust has settled | ||
| - | -==== Replies ==== | + | **Replies** |
| ><wrap em>and only if someone goes full buttmad and starts griefing on a large scale would mods be called in to ban the offender.</wrap> | ><wrap em>and only if someone goes full buttmad and starts griefing on a large scale would mods be called in to ban the offender.</wrap> | ||
| >>I don't think that should change from how it is now: if someone is killing people then the killed person can either make dealings or complain for a ban. If that's basically what you mean then ok. | >>I don't think that should change from how it is now: if someone is killing people then the killed person can either make dealings or complain for a ban. If that's basically what you mean then ok. | ||
| Line 129: | Line 112: | ||
| >>>>Ok that's fine then -vlad | >>>>Ok that's fine then -vlad | ||
| - | ==== Settlements ==== | + | **Settlements** |
| Settlements have, in the past, been treated like lesser nations, entitled to claim land—but less land than nations—, but without participating in wars—unless their leader wanted to, temporarily. Others have used them just to give their village an identity and presence on the wiki, to add fluff and lore. Under the new ruleset, I opine that the former usage be suppressed, and the latter be left intact. | Settlements have, in the past, been treated like lesser nations, entitled to claim land—but less land than nations—, but without participating in wars—unless their leader wanted to, temporarily. Others have used them just to give their village an identity and presence on the wiki, to add fluff and lore. Under the new ruleset, I opine that the former usage be suppressed, and the latter be left intact. | ||
| Line 142: | Line 125: | ||
| Settlements can continue to use the Wiki as they have done in the past, creating flags, emblems, maps, histories, lore, and whatever else they want on their pages, as this adds to the server's rich history and ensures a lasting memory. However, settlements do not //need// a wiki page to be recognised (unlike nations), and exist as (even unnamed) in-game entities too. | Settlements can continue to use the Wiki as they have done in the past, creating flags, emblems, maps, histories, lore, and whatever else they want on their pages, as this adds to the server's rich history and ensures a lasting memory. However, settlements do not //need// a wiki page to be recognised (unlike nations), and exist as (even unnamed) in-game entities too. | ||
| - | ==== Citizenship ==== | + | **Citizenship** |
| We should add a section stating that players can only be citizens of one nation, and dual citizenship is not possible. If it was, it would allow for players to maintain each other's otherwise underpopulated nations, and things like that. Perhaps reword the part that was “five active members” to “five active and exclusive members”. | We should add a section stating that players can only be citizens of one nation, and dual citizenship is not possible. If it was, it would allow for players to maintain each other's otherwise underpopulated nations, and things like that. Perhaps reword the part that was “five active members” to “five active and exclusive members”. | ||
| - | ======V1adimirr====== | + | **V1adimirr** |
| Ok now that we've had some discussion and I think we all see where the others stand, I think we all kind of want the same things. Here is a short list: | Ok now that we've had some discussion and I think we all see where the others stand, I think we all kind of want the same things. Here is a short list: | ||
| * The vast majority of specific, micromanagement decisions made by people (politburo) not by a set of rules | * The vast majority of specific, micromanagement decisions made by people (politburo) not by a set of rules | ||
| Line 176: | Line 159: | ||
| >>And as for the 3 battles, that's how it's always been so it's sensible to keep that as the default, but you'll note that immediately after that is an allowment for the nations or the political officer to change that number, so I don't see a problem. -vlad | >>And as for the 3 battles, that's how it's always been so it's sensible to keep that as the default, but you'll note that immediately after that is an allowment for the nations or the political officer to change that number, so I don't see a problem. -vlad | ||
| >>>>>My changes consist on reducing the rules, not just changing the existing ones. We can submit it to vote, I don't care if I lose although I honestly don't believe we even tried the first option. There's always been a lot of moderation intervention in these matters. --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/16 23:25// | >>>>>My changes consist on reducing the rules, not just changing the existing ones. We can submit it to vote, I don't care if I lose although I honestly don't believe we even tried the first option. There's always been a lot of moderation intervention in these matters. --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/16 23:25// | ||
| + | </hidden> | ||